all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 27 points 1 year ago

That’s too bad. I thought Chris played a fun Kirk, but really it wouldn’t have been the same without Anton Yelchin.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    sincerely hope Karl Urban joins Strange New Worlds as McCoy.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    While we're at it, let's just pull in Chris Pine (multiverse crap) and William Shatner (Nexus crap) and have one of those nutty SNW episodes that sounds like a horrible idea but is surprisingly one of the better episodes that season:

    Chris Pine Kirk, William Shatner Kirk, and Paul Wesley Kirk, in Spider Man suits are pointing to each other, except for Shatner, who is doing his gasp and jazz hands.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    I don't like reboots or parallel universes so not disappointed.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Oh no ... anyway.

  • source
  • I think they could do others based on the other Star Trek crews instead of just the original crew. :-)

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    America has a habit of milking these things dry.

    Probably a good idea to get out while people still want more.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Finally maybe we'll get the spore drive movie everyone's really been waiting for.

  • source
  • Star Trek had a nice run till its new fascist owners.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Best ratings the star trek franchise has ever seen, by a huge margin, and they toss it in the trash.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Just as they were starting to figure it out and make a movie that if you squinted enough allllmost felt like a real star trek movie.

  • source
  • 40 comments in c/movies@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 37 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ahh man. I love the castings. Lens Flares aside I do love the aesthetics.

    Shame the stories were always meh to terrible.

    But whatever there will always be more Star Trek.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    RIP Anton Yelchin

    Edit: for the most part, I agree. The roles were very well cast. But it was just the writing and the direction that I really didn’t care for.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    This is honestly expected. Paramount literally has a black list of people who they say are “anti-Semitic”. CBS has bent completely over to the Cheeto. The entire concept of Star Trek is an antithesis to their platform without completely changing what Star Trek is.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    The pledge, organized by Film Workers for Palestine and published Monday, initially featured 1,200 signatories, including filmmakers and actors: Yorgos Lanthimos, Ava DuVernay, Boots Riley, Adam McKay, Olivia Colman, Mark Ruffalo, Riz Ahmed, Tilda Swinton, Javier Bardem, Emma Stone, Andrew Garfield, Harris Dickinson, Guy Pearce, Jonathan Glazer, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Abbi Jacobson, Eric Andre, Elliot Page, Payal Kapadia, Joaquin Phoenix, and Rooney Mara.

    1200 ppl "black listed" by Paramount.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Kid Rock the next James T Kirk? Now named Charlie Kirk?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    or CHRIS PRATT who wanted to be a lead, lol. he was salty he wasnt in lead in many other established franchised, nah nobody wants a right wing nutty. people like pratt and sinese seems to have a fetish for authorative lead roles(its always military, copaganda types)

  • source
  • parent
  • I liked them, but it's just been too long since Beyond to justify the cast. Everyone will look a decade older, the crews are gone, everyone has moved on. And with a new Chekov (and most of the cast saying they'd feel bad doing it without him) it just would be a completely different movie anyway. Better to do something different.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    We learned from the interminable TNG movies that Star Trek is not suitable for being made into action movies, and they're fortunate if they're just bad Trek or bad action since they're usually bad at being both. Then again, I'm one of the few who perceives the objective fact that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is the best Trek movie, so maybe my opinion has the high and lonely destiny of rejected truth.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Didn’t know that was even discussed. Thought it was three and done.

    I was only in it for Karl Urban as Bones.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Multiple ideas and filmmakers have been considered, including [...] an R-rated Star Trek movie from Pulp Fiction director Quentin Tarantino.

    Ew. Keep that weirdo foot fetishist far away from all the wholesome alien characters. Talk about wrong vibes.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I would actually be very interested in seeing a Quentin Tarantino Star Trek film… But not as an official Star Trek film. Just as, sort of, an experiment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Galaxy Quest 2 or Orville the movie?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    orville is controlled by mcfarlane, and hes been having problems with which network will fund the next season, plus many actors dint like how it was so far in between season, it became too unaffordable to live near the orville set.(Pallacki in rosenbaums interview)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Hey now, I enjoy many of Tarantino's movies. But I wholeheartedly agree that he'd be an awful pick to write and/or direct a Star Trek movie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I will 100% admit to bias against anything Tarantino because of his defending Polanski's statutory rape and contributing to Weinstein not being held accountable for assaulting Uma Thurman and Mira Sorvina, Tarantino's own girlfriend at the time, and others. It would also not shock me in the least if sexual or physical assault allegations come out about him directly, there are already verbal assault accusations. Anyone who says a 13-year old "wanted it" when they're raped by their boss is a half step away from doing similar themselves.

    "Judge the art, not the artist" type arguments fall apart for me when the artist is still alive and profiting off their awfulness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I wasn't aware of all that. That's really shitty and gross of him to defend Polinski and Weinstein. How tf was he not canceled during the "woke" cancel wave of the mid-2010s?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Because he wasn't accused of doing things himself. And if I recall the verbal assault was against people of any gender, not just women.

    You'd be shocked and disgusted at the number of famous actors and directors who stood up for Polinski back in the day. Not even that far back in the day; he's received several lifetime achievement awards since running away from the charges, and film awards as recently as 2019.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    he’d be an awful pick to write and/or direct a Star Trek movie.

    That franchise is so stale this would have been a great experiment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I don't disagree, but I struggle to see Tarantino doing high sci-fi like that very well. He's a master at creating engrossing, gripping dialogue scenes. But what do I know, maybe he'd have done a great job in the end 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don’t mean this in a combative way (haven’t even seen much of Star Trek!) but I’m really interested in what you mean by this line:

    the scripts were mostly OK too -- at least this was true of 2009.

    It stuck out to me because I can’t quite grasp if you mean films in general were of lower quality in 2009, scripts were less advanced or dense, or if it is a specific reference to how Star Trek scripts were more acceptable since?

    Again, not meant in an argumentative way necessarily (although perhaps a little if it’s the second assumption, as I would probably disagree 🙂) - rather I am confused by seeing it expressed like this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Good riddance. Those films were terrible.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Keep JJ Abrams out of Star Trek

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Daniel Day Lewis/Paul Thomas Anderson is my pick. Star Trek about to get some heft to it.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's time to melt The Shat and have him as an annoying holo-creature on the Sulu and Chekhov adventures.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    post-jja abrams trek, and kurtzman style trek has never been good, besides the animated series.

  • source